Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Ame®icano]

Compared to the idiot in the thread who thinks the progressive income tax is Marxism ?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"... that sounds progressive. Oh wait.

US progressives are equivalent to European socialists including National socialists. The same platform, the same politics, just a different name.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I may have missed a post or three in this thread, but has anyone actually tried to answer the question yet? If it makes sense to tax higher incomes at a higher rate, why not makes sales tax and property taxes progressive as well?

No no one has answered the original question and I didn't expect them to

 

[dblack]

We have a government of the People. Does your plan include a way of getting rid of that, too?

I hope so hope so. At least the kind of government referred to by people who capitalize 'People'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You say the rich use attorneys to wring "every advantage" out of a progressive tax. What advantage does a progressive tax have for the rich that a flat tax does not?

In a flat tax system you cannot buy political favoritism to incorporate loop holes that benefit you directly, one would think that would be self evident given the monstrosity that the "progressive" tax system in the U.S. has become. It also doesn't allow for rampant experimentation in social engineering by the morons in Washington that can't even figure out how to balance their check book.

The hell you say. And exemption or a deduction is an exemption or deduction. It has nothing to do with the tax bracket structure. If you want exemptions for your employer sponsored health insurance like we have today, or a deduction for your mortgage interest like we have today, that would also be applied in a flat tax system.

What the tax accountants do is exploit the $1.2 trillion of tax expenditures in the tax code.

And those tax expenditures have NOTHING to do with the fact we have a progressive tax. Those very same tax expenditures would be carried right over into the flat tax system.

Even with a progressive income tax, you could fill out your taxes on a post card today if there were no such thing as tax expenditures.

It's tax expenditures which make our system so inequitable, not progressive taxation.

And without tax expenditures, almost every tax attorney and accountant in the country would be out of business. As would legions and legions of lobbyists.

There is no such thing as a "tax expenditure" it's a fairy tale invented by people that think government has rightful claim to the entirety of every citizens income, thus your entire premise is invalid.

Tax expenditures are very real. They are a means for redistributing wealth up the income ladder. They are theft. They take from one taxpayer and give to another. I have demonstrated this countless times.

Income redistribution is not illegal, nor theft. It is very bad policy.

However, the estate tax, or not allowing generational accumulation of wealth from capital rather than increased production of goods or services, is not redistribution that takes from a citizen who earned money simply to give to a citizen who hasn't earned money.

Just because government can pass a law

Then it's no longer a flat tax

no tax is fair. And that's why your OP is fail. That and it's argument is based on facts that don't exist.

But, there are valid argument for a simplified code

I see the need for taxes so if we are going to tax anything then each of those anythings should be taxed at the same rate for everyone

The progressive tax does tax everyone at the same rates, bracket by bracket.

Not the point but keep trying

I have said that why is one earned dollar different from another other than the fact that some politician says it is?

If we are going to tax an earned dollar then ALL earned dollars should be taxed the same they aren't now

We have a government of the People. Does your plan include a way of getting rid of that, too?

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, let's all give three cheers for Plutocracy, when the 1% make all the laws won't this be a great and wonderful utopia?

Newsflash professor; they already do.

Wait.....you're not one of those people that still think that "We the People" are in charge are ya? Do you still believe in Santa Claus too ?

We the people can but don't take charge. Most don't vote, those that do generally don't think (as in sagacious thinking) about the people they vote for or the issues facing our country; they vote by party line or vote by whatever talking points evokes an emotional response.

 

[dblack]

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

Ny was talking about government 'of the People', which is a reference to unlimited democracy.

 

[Ame®icano]

The speed limit here in school zones is 15 mph. Is that a good thing? Yes? Then why not lower it to 10, or 5, 1?

Isn't that even better?

What that has to do with progressive income tax? I still can't believe you're that retarded.

OK, tell me why cars are even allowed in the school zones?

 

[bendog]

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

Ny was talking about government 'of the People', which is a reference to unlimited democracy.

No, it's a reference to representative democracy and a tax deemed const by the scotus.

 

[NightFox]

Gee, let's all give three cheers for Plutocracy, when the 1% make all the laws won't this be a great and wonderful utopia?

Newsflash professor; they already do.

Wait.....you're not one of those people that still think that "We the People" are in charge are ya? Do you still believe in Santa Claus too ?

We the people can but don't take charge. Most don't vote, those that do generally don't think (as in sagacious thinking) about the people they vote for or the issues facing our country; they vote by party line or vote by whatever talking points evokes an emotional response.

Well said.

BTW might as well learn to enjoy the current plutocracy because there is no indication that the electorate is getting any smarter or more perceptive (quite the opposite).

 

[dblack]

What does changing the tax code to a fair system have to do with abolishing government?

Ny was talking about government 'of the People', which is a reference to unlimited democracy.

No, it's a reference to representative democracy and a tax deemed const by the scotus.

Ok... well, it depends who's using it I suppose. Like many of the buzzwords inherited from the framers, it's been twisted into all kinds of contradictory meanings.

The irony is that it's usually invoked to rationalize overbearing government. Whereas the original concept was used to distinguish society as separate entity from government, and to underline that government was to be subordinate to "the people", and not the other way around.

 

[bendog]

I may have missed a post or three in this thread, but has anyone actually tried to answer the question yet? If it makes sense to tax higher incomes at a higher rate, why not makes sales tax and property taxes progressive as well?

I think you have to define what you mean by "sense."

Although it would be constitutional, I think simply taxing 'the rich" at a higher rate simply to redistribute wealth is bad policy.

But, if we're talking about govt functions, that nearly universally considered to be essential, such as defense cops and water and firefighters, not to avoid mentioning education and even healthcare, then there are considerations of who can afford to pay the taxes with the least hardship, and also who derives the greater benefit/amount of expenditure.

 

[dblack]

I may have missed a post or three in this thread, but has anyone actually tried to answer the question yet? If it makes sense to tax higher incomes at a higher rate, why not makes sales tax and property taxes progressive as well?

I think you have to define what you mean by "sense."

Heh... indeed.

 

[bendog]

I may have missed a post or three in this thread, but has anyone actually tried to answer the question yet? If it makes sense to tax higher incomes at a higher rate, why not makes sales tax and property taxes progressive as well?

I think you have to define what you mean by "sense."

Heh... indeed.

Well, yeah. ANY tax is by definition unfair. The State takes money someone earned ... or inherited. There's simply no way to justify that on "fairness" grounds. Even if the tax is unquestionably a legal exercise of power, there are issues of social necessity, and who can pay, and how does the tax affect individuals' behaviors.

 

[Ame®icano]

The 4 bedroom house in the same neighborhood as the 2bedroom house pays a higher property tax.

The reason the federal income taxes are fair is because near all other taxes are REGRESSIVE TAXES, and hits those with less income MORE than the person with a lot of money....

Flat state income taxes,

all gvt fees and licensing uses more of a lower income family than a higher income family

State sales taxes also hurt the lower incomes at a higher rate of their income used,

And fed and state gas taxes hit those with less at a higher percentage of their income t Han the wealthiest as well

And then add mandatory health insurance which hits the middle class income more than the wealthiests income....

Then there is cigarette taxes and liquor taxes that hit the wealthiest in the least compared to those with less income....

SS TAXES hit all of the middle class and below incomes while not hitting all of the wealthiest.

The progressive income tax helps compensate the regressive tax burdens elsewhere.

This post is example of what happens when someone jumps into discussion knowing nothing about it. The other day i was discussing with colleague of mine about electrical motor that we're using on the conveyor line. She joined conversation where we were talking about "horse power". That's all she needed to start talking about her Ford that has 170 HP.

We're talking about progressive income tax, you jump in with something like this: "State sales taxes also hurt the lower incomes at a higher rate of their income used."

FYI, income tax is a tax on all money earned. Sales tax is a tax on money spent. Those are two different things. Those who spend less, pay less. Simple as that.

 

[Davros]

Here's what happens if you go from a progressive to a flat tax, put into easy to understand terms.

Example:

A 2 bracket progressive tax system:

1. Taxable income below 50,000 taxed at 10%
2. Taxable income above 50,000 taxed at 20%

Replace with 15% flat tax:

1. all taxable income below 50,000 gets a 50% tax increase.
2. all taxable income above 50,000 gets a 35% tax cut.

...anyone dispute those calculations?

Yes. If 20,000 is the standard deduction only income between 20,000 and 50,000 has a rate increase.

But if there's a standard deduction, there's no pure flat tax. Not that I have a problem with that. And not that it doesn't destroy skull pilots assertion of inefficiency and difficulty to apply in post 146

Unlike skull pilot, I have no philosophical need for a "pure" flat tax.

 

[Ame®icano]

Then explain why the "progressive" tax is great for income but not for anything else?

Why not pay more sales tax on your second third and fourth giant flat screen TVs than you do on the first?

ANd I don't mind paying taxes I just don't like unfair taxes

Not just unfair. It's unconstitutional and against equal protection clause.

 

[bendog]

Then explain why the "progressive" tax is great for income but not for anything else?

Why not pay more sales tax on your second third and fourth giant flat screen TVs than you do on the first?

ANd I don't mind paying taxes I just don't like unfair taxes

Not just unfair. It's unconstitutional and against equal protection clause.

The scotus disagrees. LOL

 

[Ame®icano]

The progressive tax taxes brackets at different rates, therefore, by itself, it is a tax system that is the same for everyone.
The money the billionaire earns in the lowest bracket is taxed the same as the person who only has taxable income in the lower bracket.

If lowest and highest brackets are paying different rate, then it's not the same for "everyone". Only for the people within that bracket. Categorizing people into earning brackets is no different then categorizing people based on race. Neither one is right.

 

[jc456]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

If you want to argue against imaginary scenarios you need to find some imaginary people to take the other side?

You love the progressive tax system don't you?

Why not apply it everywhere?

Because I'm smarter than you are.

So it's not a good tax scheme

It's a better tax system than a flat tax because in relative terms the flat tax reduces taxes on the rich and raises taxes on the not rich.

how does your math work on that? Please give an example or can you?

Edit: BTW, what is 10% of 1,000,000.00. And what is 10% of 10,000.. Just wondering if you even know math.

And tell me how much of a difference between the two figures that is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have a government of the People. Does your plan include a way of getting rid of that, too?

...people who capitalize 'People'.

You mean like the authors of the Constitution?